Changes are being proposed to the A538 Altrincham Road/Mobberley Road junction due to the expected increase in congestion caused by the construction of HS2.
Construction vehicles accessing compounds together with temporary road closures and diversions are expected to result in significant delays for users of A538 Altrincham Road and Mobberley Road - therefore traffic lights are set to be installed at the junction.
The traffic management measures will remain in place permanently following construction and will include:
• construction of a junction in a new position to the north of the existing junction. The existing junction will remain open during this period;
• closure of the existing junction upon completion of the new junction;
• signalisation of the new junction with left and right turn controls on new traffic islands.
• realignment of the footway in both directions to the new kerb line with a minimum 2m width;
• provision of a pedestrian crossing across the junction in both directions; and
• relocation of an existing bus stop for route 88, approximately 140m west of its existing location on Mobberley Road.
Temporary traffic signals will be installed to control movements at the junction during construction.
A spokesperson for HS2 said "The A538 Altrincham Road/Mobberley Road junction is not on a HS2 construction route and will therefore not be used by HS2 HGVs. However, the traffic modelling has identified a significant effect at the junction due to an increase in congestion caused by a change in traffic flows."
"The change in traffic at this junction is due to a combination of HS2 workforce traffic (workers travelling to and from the HS2 compounds) and a redistribution of existing traffic on the wider highway network as a result of HS2 construction activities elsewhere (e.g. drivers choosing to take alternative routes because of works at M56 J6).
"In order to mitigate that impact, the proposed signalised junction has been developed to better manage the forecast change in traffic flows at the junction."
Additional land is permanently required for modifications to A538 Altrincham Road and Mobberley Road junction. In addition, this will result in the removal of approximately 230m of existing hedgerow.
This proposal is included within the second Additional Provision (AP2) to the Crewe – Manchester Bill, which was submitted to Parliament in January 2002.
A spokesperson for HS2 said "Subject to the Parliamentary process, we expect to achieve Royal Assent (powers to build and operate the railway) in December 2025. Early works to prepare for construction of the Crewe – Manchester extension would begin in 2026 and we would expect the main civils programme to commence around 2027, lasting for around six years.
"HS2 will appoint construction partners to carry out the civil works programme, and once on board, they will provide a more detailed assessment of when individual programmes of work, like the A538 Altrincham Road and Mobberley road junction improvement, will take place. Our early assessments indicate this this is likely to be around 2028."
She added "Anyone directly or specially impacted by the proposals has the right to petition. Petitions must be submitted by 17.00 on 15th August 2023."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
A ghost train needs no preparation!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/jul/30/hs2-officially-unachievable-red-rating-problems-london-birmingham
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-66352286
https://www.manchester.gov.uk/info/500344/roads_and_transport/8330/high_speed_two_hs2
The transport we all need in the future of our towns and cities is the trolleybus [tBus]. Have a look at it here:
http://www.tbus.org.uk/home.htm
It isn’t new. I used one in Salzburg in 1973 and they still have a modernised system there.
It is used throughout the world - even Ukraine. See where at:
http://www.tbus.org.uk/orders.htm
But NOT here in the UK. WHY?
The Manchester Metro might have high use and be popular but a tBus network around the city would be even better. It could gradually be extended all over and even come to Wilmslow.
A Metro tram system could never come here - It costs too much to dig up the streets and lay down the track. A tram is a simplified version of a train. Why would anyone think turning our streets into a rail network by building more trams is a good idea? Tram networks are extremely limited in their coverage but a tBus network could go to most places.
A tBus network would be a bright idea because HGV’s could also use the power pick-up system and eliminate diesel pollution and noise.
We don’t have a viable future transport system in the UK because the politicians in charge of our country have for so long been a bunch of dimwits with no idea about important requirements such as transport. All they have done is build motorways so vehicles can go everywhere very easily.
Assuming the proposed new junction is intended to replace the awkward angled one near the Co-op garage/shop where Mobberley Road meets the A538, how.can a new junction be created to the north of it ? That would be where the Jim Evison playing fields are immediately west of the junction and houses are located immediately on north side of the junction ?
There is no mention of the likely impact on Morley Green Road which links the A538 and Mobberley Road nearby and is used by all in sundry including many HGVs to “cut the corner” to or from A538.
Is it possible to see a graphic version of these proposals ?
Randal MacRandal
Morley Green Road,
Morley
Wilmslow
Railways were invented to move tubs of ore out of mines, as a man (or a horse) could pull far heavier loaded tubs if they were on rails.
Regarding that Guardian piece on HS2, it just looks like HM Treasury has decided it may not wish to fund HS2 after all. There is no technical reason why it should not be built in full as originally designed. There is nothing new about high speed rail technology - other countries such as Japan, most of mainland Europe, China, and even Morocco have been building such lines for decades, and still are today. Even Britain managed to build HS1 on time and on budget.
It seems that (recently) Broken Britain just can't 'do' major infrastructure any more, along with much else. Our Victorian forefathers must be spinning in their graves when comparing today's lack of backbone to 'just get it done' and stop saying "no", compared to what they achieved - the railway infrastructure we still use today in Britain.
Have a look at what Germany and Sweden are getting up to.
What you see at the links below describes a system of running eHGV's on motorways. Early days and in the testing stage but what did Grant Shapps - the muppet recently in charge of transport and famous for removing the motorway hard shoulder - do along these lines?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3P_S7pL7Yg
https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/new-swedish-e-motorway-will-do-away-with-need-to-charge-vehicle-18-05-2023/
The systems described utilise overhead power pick-up that could not be used in cities & towns. A pick-up which is the same as that used by a tBus [trolleybus - see my previous posting for links to those] would allow eHGV's also to be used in cities.
Shapps is now in charge of ENERGY so don’t expect anything innovative there. No requirement for new homes to have solar panels and practically ALL our offshore wind power being foreign-owned. See below for the WORLD’s largest offshore wind farm at Dogger Bank, in our North Sea and foreign owned - Swedish [Equinor], Irish [SSE Renewables] & Norwegian [Vårgrønn].
https://doggerbank.com/a-joint-venture/
A wind turbine is a stick with a propeller on the end planted in the seabed and turning a generator.
We have world leading aerodynamic knowhow in Rolls Royce and Airbus, ‘stick planting’ knowhow in the North Sea from our years of oilrig manufacture and surely someone able to make electrical generators? But no - we’ve allowed all our offshore wind to be developed by foreign companies [jobs?]. Why?
So when our politicians go on about how we are leading the world in wind farms and our drive towards net zero just remember that little [none?] of it is being achieved by UK companies, technology, expertise or know-how! Anyone care to find out how many UK jobs have been created? Minimal is my guess.
Hardly a PROBLEM Vince. In which case let’s replace ALL our road vehicles with steel wheels like on trains and save energy but perhaps knacker up our roads more than they are at the moment!
Trams/trains and trolley busses are different animals for different applications.
Trams are ok for along seafronts like Blackpool and as you say rails were ok in mines but have quite limited applications in our cities. The tram track in our streets covers up so many essentials like sewers, water pipes, gas pipes, electrical cables, communication cables [have I missed any?], which could require future access. This needs to be borne in mind with possible redirection before the tram track is laid. It’s my guess the cost of laying the tram tracks is more than half the total cost of a tram [our Metro] system. This is another way of saying you could have a tBus network for less than half the price of a tram system or twice the network for the same cost. Other advantages are you can go round tight corners and up/down steep hills in most weathers. A tBus is SO quiet as almost to be a safety hazard but then again you can have a tBus stop outside your house and you wouldn’t hear one coming and going in the middle of the night. Not so with a tram. Have you never heard the SQUEAL the Metro trams make when going round a tight bend at the lightning speed of about 2mph? Not to mention vibrations which is why the new Manchester Bridgewater Hall was constructed on 280 springs to hide the passing of the Metro trams. There wouldn’t be any outside your house to quieten your life though! See the link below:
https://source.thenbs.com/case-study/building-isolation-bridgewater-hall-concert-hall/38EXBmST1TTV75hTUH2sh3/8xBQaPyVdsNqLucFZgj7RH
There are many advantages of a tBus system. The main advantages of a tram are that there’s only a stop/go control.
If, as you say Vince, HM Treasury [the taxpayer - you too Vince] might not continue with the funding I can’t see private finance taking it on but if they did I’m sure fares would be rather expensive.
Another interesting snippet of information is that British steel sold their specialist rail manufacturing plant in March 2020 when we were all making noises about HS2 and improving our railways. It went to the Chinese, so now we will be buying our railway tracks from them.
https://www.railfreight.com/business/2020/03/10/uk-rail-making-plant-sold-to-chinese/?gdpr=deny
It might make some sense but sometimes I think you couldn’t make it up!
Why not couple 100 or so of these 'electric trucks' together. Then run them on rails with far greater efficiency than you get with rubber tyres on a road (as I said above), and of course instead of 100 drivers you'd only need one.
And keeping these behemoths off the road system would greatly ease road congestion and vastly improve the currently appalling standards of road safety.
Brilliant! We just re-invented THE ELECTRICLY-POWERED FREIGHT TRAIN!
This junction has needed a simple set of traffic lights for years, put them in and forget all this other nonsense.
Why do we need to reclaim that capacity? Because pre-Covid, rail demand was growing and there were very few spare paths available on those lines (worsening nearer London which is why HS2 was started from the south). Post Covid, passenger levels are growing rapidly and will soon surpass pre-Covid levels, with the exception of London commuting. Rail freight is today severely capacity constrained, with trains spending hours in loops awaiting a forward path and the rail freight businesses calling out for more freight capacity on the railway. If we are serious about getting long distance freight of the motorways and onto rail, that has to change. And much needed service upgrades far away from HS2 itself will be enabled, such as the promised half-hourly service on the Mid Cheshire line, currently unable to be implemented because there are no spare train paths between Stockport and Manchester.
However, the eastern leg of HS2 has been axed, as has the northern section to Golborn where it was to re-join the West Coast line for services to the north of England and Scotland, and there is uncertainty over the HS2 Euston terminus. If HS2 is reduced to an ‘Old Oak Common to Birmingham’ line then it simply will not deliver the capacity relief it was designed to do and it will not deliver the return on investment it was designed to deliver. We will end up spending most of the money without seeing much benefit.
As I said earlier, it seems we have lost the ability (or perhaps, the will?) to build major vital infrastructure in this country. On a smaller scale than HS2, we saw this malaise with the Ordsall Chord scheme in Manchester where the first part was built, but the second part was axed to save money. This meant the money spent of doing the first part was largely wasted as the half-built scheme delivers little if any benefit.
If we don't build HS2 as originally designed, the alternative will be more motorways - far more environmentally damaging in build and in operation than a clean 2-track electric railway. And it's worth looking back to HS1, which before it was built was predicted to rip the heart out of The Garden of England. It did no such thing. Today, no-one complains about HS1, not even those who live close to it - we simply use it as a useful and superb piece of vital infrastructure and are glad it is there.
So what is the best way forward regarding HS2? The worst option would be to simply stop now, leaving the countryside littered with half-built tunnels and viaducts, with money spent on which there will be zero return. The second best is to complete it as far as Manchester which will deliver a significant part of its benefit, but no means all. The best thing to do is to bite the bullet and do as other countries do - build the new railway in its entirety as originally planned. And of course every delay and every change of mind adds to the cost.
However, it’s looking increasing likely that HM Treasury (who only look at cost, not benefit) will dictate it will go no further than Birmingham with a possible future southern extension to the Euston terminus. What a great shame that would be.
Speed wasn't the main factor.
There was also a Fine London terminal to complete the concept.
HS2 for passengers saves what, 30 minutes to Manchester? Is that a worthwhile benefit?
It will take far too long to begin operation in which time the cost will be OTT.
It consists of several very long sections with nowhere to exit between the ends. If there is a problem at any point the whole thing will come to a complete standstill with no trains moving. I'm thinking breakdown, track defects and an easy target for sabotage.
The link to Manchester Airport would seem to invite competition with air travel between Heathrow and Manchester.
I don't quite fully understand the freight benefit as surely the UK's mainline routes are rather quiet overnight and at weekends when there aren't that many trains running. So can't we maximise freight by night first before thinking we need HS2. Or do train drivers only want to work in the daytime?
I don't know and will listen to any comment Vince has by way of an explanation.
Other comments about our railways:
Why is the floor of our trains not the same level as the platforms? Look at the snazzy image at the top of this post and you will see someone in a wheelchair on HS2 can very easily get in/out all by themselves and not require to book assistance at the station. Rather like on/off the London tube [assuming it’s possible to get down to the platforms ok. Probably not!]. When Manchester Piccadilly station was renovated in 2003, surely that was an opportunity to raise the level of the platforms to permit easier carriage access.
Our trains just aren’t fit for modern travel. Anyone wanting to take a bike or pram/buggy becomes a hindrance to other passengers and need to loiter by the doors.
If you are going on holiday and have a large suitcase [or cases in respect of a family or group of friends] space to put those is sparse and might be out of sight from your seat and at risk of being nicked at a station stop along the way.
Trains used to have a guards van where bikes, cases and stuff could go. A feature that some train designer seems to think is an ‘old-fashioned’ concept perhaps and no use in the modern world? It was possible to send small freight between local stations to increase revenue. There was also a service called Red Star where you could take a package to your local station, stick it on a train and was then collected by a pal of yours when the train pulled into their station a while later. Again, more revenue for the train operator.
Most trains are just filthy, especially the carpets. I cringed one day when a young mother allowed her baby to CRAWL along the floor. Ugh! Carriages are just not DESIGNED and constructed so as to easily be cleaned with dirt and muck gradually getting forced into gaps in the fixtures and fittings at floor level. Have a look next time you are on a train.
Do I need to comment on refreshments available on a train and even on railway stations?
To my mind all these observations are reasons our railways just do not have a clue and haven’t had one for years. Can you add a few of your own?
When Virgin took over that route they transformed it, with three reliable trains per hour in each direction, at very little over two hours journey time. That won over the business traffic between the two cities from air to rail. If HS2 went as far as Glasgow and Edinburgh it would no doubt do the same for that route - the extra speed really would be a factor on a journey of that length. In mainland Europe, high speed rail has pretty much eliminated short haul flying, which is good news environmentally and for passengers for whom the journey is far more pleasant than airports and air travel.
As for train / platform levels we do not even have standardised platform heights. An exception is the new Elizabeth Line in London which does offer level boarding, as will HS2. This is because we have never had a planned railway system in this country. Our railways were built speculatively by Victorian entrepreneurs so there was no common standard for such things (the Elizabeth Line has now set such a standard which future stations and trains can follow). Rebuilding every station platform to a common height these days would be quite simply unaffordable, and in any case the historical lack of a common standard means train floor heights vary. HS2 is in fact the first time we have had a UK main line railway which has been planned to meet a need, rather than built as a speculative investment.
I agree that an HS2 station at Manchester Airport is superfluous, but it would only be built if there was outside money available for it. I can't see that being the case as I can't see who'd use it. So it probably will not be built even if HS2 is completed as far as Manchester.
Although the government would like you to think we have a privatised railway, it is in fact state-run in all but name. The Train Operating Companies (TOCs) are on management contracts these days for which they get paid 2%, so no-one's getting rich from rail revenues. Furthermore the TOCs cannot so much as blow their noses without DfT permission. DfT specifies everything from the new trains (with ironing board seats), to which services will be operated and when. So blame them for new trains with inadequate luggage space and lack of on-board catering, for 2-coach trains where 5 coaches are needed - and for the ludicrous proposal to close almost all station ticket offices. Those who call for re-nationalisation should realise we already have it in all but name - and it is not good!
As for rail freight, much of it does indeed travel overnight but that isn't enough to meet the demand. It has to travel by day as well. As for weekends, these are now among the busiest days for passenger travel as the biggest rise in passenger numbers currently is leisure travel. As a result Network Rail are considering moving the tradition 'Sunday engineering works line closures' to a weekday.
Looking at the many malaises of today's railway one does wonder what DfT (and HM Treasury) are up to. They are making train travel less pleasant, more expensive, and less reliable than it was when the likes of Virgin ran the West Coast Main Line and the TOCs had a freer hand to introduce innovation. It seems that was the golden age for our railways - free of the dead hand of government that was British Rail. Today, that 'dead hand' is firmly back in control, and it shows!
So not only do we need HS2 in its entirety, we also need DfT to take a back seat and let the railway be run by those who understand it. What happened to ‘Great British Railways’, the organisation which was supposed to do just that? After Derby won the competition for GBR to be based there, nothing has been heard. Did Derby win a competition with no prize?
The emasculation of HS2 and the sad state of UK rail today are not unrelated.
Has it changed much?
Here's what it was like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftEQmoVtR4E
Now, I wonder where it all went?
Yes, you have explained at some length what HS2 is for. It would appear to have fallen on deaf or closed ears!
All this mayhem, chaos, congestion, confusion, heartbreak, expense, loss of countryside & hedgerows, wildlife etc ad nauseam...and for what? A huge great white elephant, lining the bulging pockets of a handful of already filthy rich, already desperately greedy men.
London and Edinburgh are further apart than Berlin and Munich
London and Birmingham are further apart than Frankfurt and Cologne
London and Manchester are further apart than Tokyo and Nagoya.
All of which in Japan and Germany have high speed lines between them. No particular time or distance reason why the UK could not match those overseas. Big question about whether it's worth the current price tag though.
HS2 is NOT about speed. It's about capacity.
Though of course the extra speed does allow more trains per hour therefore more capacity on HS2 for the high speed non-stop services removed from the Victorian network. But it's that very removal of those services from the mixed-use old railway that yields the real capacity wins.